Let’s say the election goes ahead on schedule and a radical Shi’ite government is returned, rabidly anti-American. They tell the West to get the hell out of their country. The country soon becomes a haven for terrorists. What on earth do we do then?
Surely the US and UK must have reckoned on this possible outcome and have some contingency plan. I just can’t imagine what that plan might be.
Firstly, what is your evidence that the US and UK have previously made contingency plans for Iraq? :rolleyes:
I don’t know why you bother to mention the country becoming a ‘haven for terrorists’. Iraq’s got oil. Therefore the US will never leave.
I suppose they can choose from:
Note how there is still a US base in Cuba, even though the two Governments detest each other.
No Matter what, Iraq will be going through a civil war.
If we leave today, or in two years, no matter who’s in charge, civil war is coming…
The American base in Cuba is from a treaty signed before Castro came to power.
It’s reported in Time Magazine thatthe Castro Govt has never cashed the checks for the “rent”.
How do we know that the next government will be more shite than the one they’ve got now? :dubious:
Is there any evidence that Iraqis are going to elect a radical shiite government? I haven’t seen any. In elections that have already been held in Iraq (town councils, mayors, etc), the Islamists haven’t done very well.
It may in fact be a Shiite government, but it might not be Islamist. al-Sistani is the strongest figure in the Shiite community, and he seems to me more of a, “government and religion should be separate” kinda guy.
The Shiites also seem to be getting along much better with the Kurds and the Coalition than are the Sunnis. al-Sadr’s attempted intifada fell on its face largely because he had almost no support from the people at large.
So let’s ask this question: What if Iraq has a moderate Shiite government? One that can show Iran that a Shiite government doesn’t have to be oppressive? Perhaps it will help moderate Iran, or at least foster more rebellion in the Iranian population.
You folks need to define your terms better. What is radical? What is Islamist? What is moderate?
The two largest ( there are also a number of minor ones ) Shi’a factions that have allied to form the pan-Shi’a coalition with Sistani’s prodding are SCIRI and al-Da’wa. Both are unabashedly Islamist. They do not represent the same strain of Islamism that the Sadrists do, but there are Islamist all the same.
SCIRI, an offshoot of the older al-Da’wa, was long based in Iran, is heavily supported by Iran and has traditionally been influenced and supportive of the Iranian concept of velayat-e faqih - i.e. Iranian-style clerical rule.
Al-Da’wa al-Islamiyya for the most part ( it is an internally factionated party, that indeed includes some Sunni Islamists, presumably based on cultural connections as well as ideology - i.e. there are a number of old Iraqi tribnes with both Sunni and Shi’a branches ) does not support the concept of velayat-e faqih. That, however, does not make them any less Islamist. They just represent a slightly different face than SCIRI does.
Sistani is NOT a believer in firm seperation of church and state, at least not in an American sense. He too is an Islamist. What he is a quietist ( saketeh - as with a majority of vwery senior Shi’a clerics ), rather than a believer in direct clerical rule. In the quietist view, clerics would intervene only during moral crises and the like to offer advice and help shape debate ( as Sistani is doing now ). But he still wants a state run on Islamic principles and shari’a, which is all an Islamist really is at base ( the devil is in the details ).
The Sadrists are self-styled natiqah ( “vocal” - i.e. activist rather than quietist ), a position they staked out in opposition to the old guard quietists like Sistani. Though the elder Sadr never entirely bought into Khomeini’s velayat-e faqih ( he was more on the fence on that one ), the son is a bit more friendly to the idea.
The first three above have mostly been content to work with the Americans for the time being. The fourth, have mostly not. I’m not sure what people are thinking of when they talk about a “radical Shi’ite government”, but one thing is certain - Islamist-aligned Shi’a will win a majority of votes or at least a majority of the Shi’a vote. The secular Shi’a parties are simply outgunned ( in a metaphorical sense, though in a literal sense as well ) by the Islamic parties in terms of size, organization, and popularity. What implications this has for the future of Iraq and American-Iraqi relations remains to be seen and I will personally not venture a guess - too many unknowns. However I would not predict immediate chaos - most of the Shi’i Islamists have shown a streak of pragmatism thus ar.
Here is one list of Iraqi parties, with histories:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqiopposition.html
An analysis of Iraqi Islamists:
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr108.html
I agree that the Shiite’s will be pragmatic and actually any Shiite Government, or any elected Government for that matter, will be totally dependant on the U.S. and coalition forces for Security and to retain power for the foreseeable future. They cannot afford *not * to be pragmatic until the situation calms down. I think the U.S. and Shiite leaders all know that. I hope that goes to the OP.
What really worries me is participation and the buy-in from the Iraqi Sunni street and International community. That, and not an “islamicist/Shiite”issue, is the real looming issue with the elections. Consider A. The Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led the bloody uprising this summer has not joined these elections. And **B. ** What will be the level of Sunni participation in the election itself. Especially in places like Fallujah, Samarra or Mosul, will they actually go to the polls? At this point it looks very much like the answer is “no” due, at least partially, to fear and the security situation. Insurgent leaders are very clear in their threats that polling stations, candidates and people who go to vote are all fair game. What if, say 15%, of the eligible Sunni Arab population votes … What does that say? How legitimate will those election results seem?
George W. Bush declares the election results null and void. Condoleeza Rice serves up some nonsense about “preserving the flame of democracy in Iraq,” which everyone in the world (save for the Bush apologists) see through as so much bullstuff.
Yawn…
In the hypothetical example of the OP what would happen is any orders the newly elected radical gave regarding US forces would be ignored. Seeing this it would be impossible for any other Iraqi politician to support him. The US diplomats and their Iraqi counterparts would try and persuade him to radically change his views or, more likely, just resign.
Eventually he would either resign, flee to an America-hating country and rule in absentia, or serve out his term as a totally ineffectual leader whose decisions never go beyond his desk while the country remains under US military control.
In other words, exactly what should happen.
Ah. So George Bush’s spiel about respecting the will of the Iraqi people and allowing them to elect a sovereign government was what? A joke? In which case, why bother having the sham elections in the first place?
It gives a rubber stamp of approval for the American puppets. “What an amazing coinkydink! Your first free elections have resulted in a victory for the candidates whose views and policies just happen to be exactly what we wanted to do anyway! Gosh, how convenient!” Just look at how well it worked out for Hamid Karzai…
Double yawn…
The OP is intrisically flawed. As others have pointed out it isn’t likely that a radical will be elected by the Iraqi people. So this whole little thought experiment only goes so far before it has nothing to do with reality.
If by views & policies you mean the views & policies of a modern, tolerant, democratic, progressive society, you know, the kind that the most of the west has had for more than two centuries, then yes, as I said, that is exactly what should happen.
Rule by radical muslim clerics is akin to fascism, nazi-ism, and every kind of despotism. It should go the way of cholera and slavery.
It doesn’t matter who they elect as long as they remain democratic. And they will remain democratic partly because they have to under the terms of the constitution (which they have all agreed to and signed) and partly because they want to (it’s the only way to run a country with as many different groups as Iraq). They could elect my pet rabbit, which would stand on a platform of more carrots for all, if they wanted and it wouldn’t make any difference because it would still have to stand for re-election.
That’s the thing about fascist governments (like the Iranian mullahs) - they are only able to be as bad as they are because they don’t have to fear being voted out. If there was an election in Iran tomorrow the mullahs would be history.
Can’t have some jumped up foreigner telling US troops what to do, can we? :rolleyes:
Incidentally, what happens if he flees to an America-hating country like Iraq? 
Sorry, when did women and blacks get the vote again?
Heres a reason why Clerics won’t rule in Iraq you’ve all overlooked. The Sunnis wouldn’t stand for it.
I’m sorry but have you completely forgotten that the elections were told to be put on schedule by Sistani? Or the Najaf standoff which was won on the insistance that he go himself to get Sadr out, so he basically told the US and Iraqi troops to back off whilst he did the job? We’ve taken numerous orders from the Iraqi government, just convienient that you seemed to have forgotten this.
Given that the USA has a say in who is even allowed to stand for election - these coming elections have little chance of being either fair or democratic. Also the people living in the most troubled areas - who, some could argue, are the most important voters, will probably be denied a vote because of the difficulties in voter registration.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.html
Don’t you even remember when the Nazis came to power and bullied their way to office by using a private milita, such as the brownshits (the SA) and how each militia battled with communists on the streets for control, I think its a good move to try and limit the amount of control political parties have on peoples way of life. We’re over there to forment a political process that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to be executed to maintain order and control. Whoever they elect doesn’t matter, as long as they respect the democratic institutions we’ve tried to help put in place.
We have that in England, David Blunkett has thought about and tried to initiate legislation to ban the British National Party from standing in elections and civil service, as they preach hatred and violence usually.
Yes, but what do the Americans want?
Um, the current Iraqi Government was handpicked and installed by the US!
I am certain that the US troops will not obey orders from any Iraqi and that the timetable for elections is completely under US control.
The Cuban Government wants the US out of Guantanamo Bay - do you see that happening?
While I dislike the BNP intensely, it is a difficult line between preventing hatemongers and civil liberties.
Blunkett is not a shining example of civil liberties. He (or his replacement, Charles Clark) want to introduce ID cards and have locked up ‘terrorists’ without trial for over 3 years.
I’m all for defeating terrorists - but I don’t want some politician declaring who they are and locking them up, or why drastic measures are necessary against some undefined threat.
[QUOTE=Ryan_LiamI’m sorry but have you completely forgotten that the elections were told to be put on schedule by Sistani?[/quote]
Were they?
Probably because it was the best option to get it done?
Numerous orders? If you mean that they’ve made requests (see elections above) and been rejected, then yes, we’ve taken numerous orders from them.